If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I seem to remember hearing that the administration line was to counter the resurgence of taliban. Additionally, a hot topic has been the drug/poppy industry, which funds terrorist activities. Obama recently replaced the commanding General. This would not have happened so that we could better rebuild schools and infrastructure.

Okay--fine. First: What does the resurgence of the Taliban in 2009 have to do with the safety and security of the US? I don't want to hear from you--I want to hear from the administration sending troops in harm's way and expensive resources. Second: How does the drug industry fund terrorism any differently in 2009 than in, say, 1989 or 1999, and how will sending troops deter the drug industry from funding terrorism, and why is sending troops better at deterring the drug industry's funding of terrorism than some other method less deadly to our own? Again, I don't want to hear from you--fine as your answer might be, I could probably come up with something just as good--I want to hear it from the administration sending troops in harm's way and expensive resources.

I lean against continuing and/or escalating the conflict, but I'm not immune to argument. At one point I was surprisingly hawkish on the issue. But right now, I want to hear the articulation for WHY we're doing this coming from the top--not coming from my own or others' speculation. I want to judge whether those doing the sending-in-harm's-way can clearly and convincingly articulate why they are doing so.

If anyone's got a good link or written source, I'd sincerely love to read it. What I've heard on the news--various sources--and read in newspapers isn't doing it for me.

Okay--fine. First: What does the resurgence of the Taliban in 2009 have to do with the safety and security of the US? I don't want to hear from you--I want to hear from the administration sending troops in harm's way and expensive resources. Second: How does the drug industry fund terrorism any differently in 2009 than in, say, 1989 or 1999, and how will sending troops deter the drug industry from funding terrorism, and why is sending troops better at deterring the drug industry's funding of terrorism than some other method less deadly to our own? Again, I don't want to hear from you--fine as your answer might be, I could probably come up with something just as good--I want to hear it from the administration sending troops in harm's way and expensive resources.

I lean against continuing and/or escalating the conflict, but I'm not immune to argument. At one point I was surprisingly hawkish on the issue. But right now, I want to hear the articulation for WHY we're doing this coming from the top--not coming from my own or others' speculation. I want to judge whether those doing the sending-in-harm's-way can clearly and convincingly articulate why they are doing so.

If anyone's got a good link or written source, I'd sincerely love to read it. What I've heard on the news--various sources--and read in newspapers isn't doing it for me.

Your question is a fair one. From a human rights perspective, the Taliban makes Saddam Hussein look relatively benevolent. However, that does not represent an inherent threat against the US. The Taliban was the group that provided Al Quaeda with the freedom to operate needed for it to organize and launch its terror attacks on the US. Put in the position of controlling a country again, I suspect that the Taliban would be happy to host its allies for another try. Al Quaeda needs failed, outlaw states to provide it with training grounds, opportunities for escape, and the ability to hide under the wings of a friendly government. At different times they have used the Sudan for that purpose, Somalia, and more recently post Saddam Iraq. While Al Quaeda would have been happy to trade up from being based in Afghanistan to controlling post Saddam Iraq, the stabilization of the government in Iraq has made that less of a possibility. Afghanistan and Pakistan start looking better and better, particularly if Al Quaeda can gain control over any of Pakistan's military resources. In addition, the strength of Afghanistan as a source of heroin provides Al Quaeda with a needed source of financing.

Your question is a fair one. From a human rights perspective, the Taliban makes Saddam Hussein look relatively benevolent. However, that does not represent an inherent threat against the US. The Taliban was the group that provided Al Quaeda with the freedom to operate needed for it to organize and launch its terror attacks on the US. Put in the position of controlling a country again, I suspect that the Taliban would be happy to host its allies for another try. Al Quaeda needs failed, outlaw states to provide it with training grounds, opportunities for escape, and the ability to hide under the wings of a friendly government. At different times they have used the Sudan for that purpose, Somalia, and more recently post Saddam Iraq. While Al Quaeda would have been happy to trade up from being based in Afghanistan to controlling post Saddam Iraq, the stabilization of the government in Iraq has made that less of a possibility. Afghanistan and Pakistan start looking better and better, particularly if Al Quaeda can gain control over any of Pakistan's military resources. In addition, the strength of Afghanistan as a source of heroin provides Al Quaeda with a needed source of financing.

Jeff, I kind of know all of that. However, I have yet to hear the administration articulate it clearly and provide a plan for success in the endeavor. What I'm hearing from them is a human-rights argument, which doesn't sway me right now.

Jeff, I kind of know all of that. However, I have yet to hear the administration articulate it clearly and provide a plan for success in the endeavor. What I'm hearing from them is a human-rights argument, which doesn't sway me right now.

Which administration? The one who inherited the wars, or the one who started them? The reasons changed like the wind direction.

If I recall my recent history, we launched military operations in Afghanastan to 1) punish/kill/capture Bin Laden and those responsible for 9-11
2) disable the terrorist network's ability to wage terror which at the time was felt to be centered in A-stan.

Those were "just causes" for waging war. What I don't understand to this day, is why we shifted focus to Iraq, what exactly have we accomplished, and what is our end point?

Afghanastan has a long history of being the regions "whipping boy". They have endured eons of invasion and occupation, and have through their perserverance, brought down major empires, such as the Romans and the USSR. (not totally, but played MAJOR roles)

Which administration? The one who inherited the wars, or the one who started them? The reasons changed like the wind direction.

If I recall my recent history, we launched military operations in Afghanastan to 1) punish/kill/capture Bin Laden and those responsible for 9-11
2) disable the terrorist network's ability to wage terror which at the time was felt to be centered in A-stan.

Those were "just causes" for waging war. What I don't understand to this day, is why we shifted focus to Iraq, what exactly have we accomplished, and what is our end point?

Afghanastan has a long history of being the regions "whipping boy". They have endured eons of invasion and occupation, and have through their perserverance, brought down major empires, such as the Romans and the USSR. (not totally, but played MAJOR roles)

Initially with Bush, I thought it was a fair argument (though I didn't believe they would follow through--unfortunately, I think I was right), though it made me very unhappy to be doing it anyway; somewhere in the middle, the articulation of the mission got fuzzy; right now, in the year 2009, it's THIS administration I'm looking for articulation from, and not getting it. Again--I don't hang on the wires all day long--so if anyone is seeing a good statement on our mission there, would love to see it.

What I don't understand to this day, is why we shifted focus to Iraq, what exactly have we accomplished, and what is our end point?

Why we're in Iraq? You've insinuated that one of the reasons was so Dick Cheney could enrich himself and his cronies so any further discussion with you on that subject is an abject waste of time.

What have we accomplished?
- Assured ourselves, the Middle East and the world that Saddam Hussein would never again produce and use WMDs or export them to others who would
- Removed a dictator who was destabilizing a region crucial to our national security
- Upheld UN sanctions (I don't particularly care about that, but that seems to be important to folks like you)
- freed 25 million people from a tyrant who would feed his own people to plastic shredders and gas women and children
- established a sustainable democracy in a region sorely in need of a democratic examplar. A stable, free, and democratic Middle East is a crucial US security and economic interest.
- We established a precedent that we will not sit back and wait to be attacked before acting in our self-interests and self-preservation
- We established that we are willing to risk national treasure in the effort to prevent rogue nations from aquiring WMDs
- We scared the bejeebers (and the WMD aspirations) out of Libya
- We spooked Pakistan to the extent that they dropped dime on the grandfather of their nuke program who was suspected of passing on nuke technology to rogue states
- A military presence in Iraq and other areas of the Persian Gulf allows us to pull out of Saudia Arabia; giving us greater latitude to apply more pressure to them to stop funding militant jihadists
- A likely unintended consequence was that Iraq served as a magnet to concentrate jihadists and make it easier to slay them in great numbers. Al Queda's reputation as a top notch terror outfit took a beating in Iraq

What is our end point? You're seeing it. A relatively stable, free and democratic Iraq that is gaining strength at the same time we're removing troops.

Jeff, I kind of know all of that. However, I have yet to hear the administration articulate it clearly and provide a plan for success in the endeavor. What I'm hearing from them is a human-rights argument, which doesn't sway me right now.

"I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," Obama said. "That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just." [Obama, 3/20/2009]

"I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future," Obama said. "That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just." [Obama, 3/20/2009]

Okay, that's better. (And just because I'm difficult, now I'd like to hear the new general say it, too.)

Why we're in Iraq? You've insinuated that one of the reasons was so Dick Cheney could enrich himself and his cronies so any further discussion with you on that subject is an abject waste of time.

What have we accomplished?
- Assured ourselves, the Middle East and the world that Saddam Hussein would never again produce and use WMDs or export them to others who would
- Removed a dictator who was destabilizing a region crucial to our national security
- Upheld UN sanctions (I don't particularly care about that, but that seems to be important to folks like you)
- freed 25 million people from a tyrant who would feed his own people to plastic shredders and gas women and children
- established a sustainable democracy in a region sorely in need of a democratic examplar. A stable, free, and democratic Middle East is a crucial US security and economic interest.
- We established a precedent that we will not sit back and wait to be attacked before acting in our self-interests and self-preservation
- We established that we are willing to risk national treasure in the effort to prevent rogue nations from aquiring WMDs
- We scared the bejeebers (and the WMD aspirations) out of Libya
- We spooked Pakistan to the extent that they dropped dime on the grandfather of their nuke program who was suspected of passing on nuke technology to rogue states
- A military presence in Iraq and other areas of the Persian Gulf allows us to pull out of Saudia Arabia; giving us greater latitude to apply more pressure to them to stop funding militant jihadists
- A likely unintended consequence was that Iraq served as a magnet to concentrate jihadists and make it easier to slay them in great numbers. Al Queda's reputation as a top notch terror outfit took a beating in Iraq

What is our end point? You're seeing it. A relatively stable, free and democratic Iraq that is gaining strength at the same time we're removing troops.

I'm sure the estimated 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians appreciate not living under dictatorship. When we send out SecState Rice to open new trading lanes with Libya and Khadaffi ("we will not negotiate with terrorists") it was for economic reasons they gave up their budget-draining nuke program. Your take of UN resolutions is complete whackadoodle. I really don't have the energy to waste by going on.

Okay--fine. First: What does the resurgence of the Taliban in 2009 have to do with the safety and security of the US? I don't want to hear from you--I want to hear from the administration sending troops in harm's way and expensive resources. Second: How does the drug industry fund terrorism any differently in 2009 than in, say, 1989 or 1999, and how will sending troops deter the drug industry from funding terrorism, and why is sending troops better at deterring the drug industry's funding of terrorism than some other method less deadly to our own? Again, I don't want to hear from you--fine as your answer might be, I could probably come up with something just as good--I want to hear it from the administration sending troops in harm's way and expensive resources.

I lean against continuing and/or escalating the conflict, but I'm not immune to argument. At one point I was surprisingly hawkish on the issue. But right now, I want to hear the articulation for WHY we're doing this coming from the top--not coming from my own or others' speculation. I want to judge whether those doing the sending-in-harm's-way can clearly and convincingly articulate why they are doing so.

If anyone's got a good link or written source, I'd sincerely love to read it. What I've heard on the news--various sources--and read in newspapers isn't doing it for me.

You asked "What does the resurgence of the Taliban in 2009 have to do with the safety and security of the US?" These are people who publicly state that their sole interest in life is to cause us harm. (Which by the way is the same thing they repeatedly stated before 9/11, our bad for not taking care of business first). Do you think that our country, as well as our interests/citizens overseas, are steadfastly safe? Where there is a will, there is a way, especially when they are indiscriminant about targets.

As far as the administrations reasoning for build up...Rather than me post all the url's here, which I just deleted, a google search on-- obama, troops in afghanistan, resurgent-- will give you all you want. You said that you've followed the issue closely?? The resurgence of the Taliban is at the heart of the build up, a point which has been stated time and time again.

How do you propose that we handle the drug issue to cut off terrorist financing? As of this week they are bombing poppy crops. It's a boots on ground military job, since their own government cannot stop it.